- The man was found in contempt after repeatedly failing to comply with a Rule 43 interim maintenance order granted in September 2025.
- Acting Judge Barthus found that his explanations for delayed and unpaid reimbursements were vague, unsupported, and contradicted by the evidence.
- He was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for three years, as long as he complies with the order and pays R23 350.76 within five days.
A man who repeatedly failed to follow a court order to pay interim maintenance and reimburse his estranged wife’s expenses has been declared in contempt and sentenced to six months in jail.
Acting Judge V Barthus delivered the judgment in the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town on 14 August 2026, after hearing the contempt application on 13 August.
The case was about a Rule 43 order granted on 2 September 2025, while the couple’s divorce was still pending. The order set out several financial obligations for the husband, including monthly cash maintenance, medical costs, vehicle expenses, property expenses, and the monthly Sanlam premium.
It also required him to reimburse his wife within five days after receiving invoices or proof of payment. His wife went back to court, saying he was still not complying. She highlighted late payments, unpaid expenses, and refusals to pay for costs that the order clearly covered.
The husband opposed the application, blaming some delays on practical problems and what he claimed were issues with the documentation his wife provided. He also said that handling communication through attorneys was a factor, and went as far as to argue that the application was an abuse of process.
Payments were repeatedly late or stopped altogether
The judgment details a pattern of delayed and missing payments from September 2025 to February 2026. The husband only paid the maintenance due from 1 September 2025 on 17 September, even though the Rule 43 order was granted on 2 September.
Reimbursements for September expenses, submitted on 1 October, were only paid on 27 October, even after the wife’s attorneys sent demands. Claims submitted in October were only paid on 26 November. After that, no further reimbursements were made, even though there were claims for expenses between October 2025 and February 2026.
Unpaid expenses included medical costs, Pathcare blood tests, prescription glasses, security invoices, tyre replacement, lawnmower petrol, and the November 2025 Sanlam premium. The husband gave no meaningful explanation for refusing to pay.
The husband admitted that payments were delayed and not all required payments had been made. He blamed some of the delays on being out of the country and without phone reception, and claimed that some expenses were not 'properly vouched for'.
His wife had kept detailed records of the claims, payments, and outstanding amounts. The husband did not dispute their accuracy or deny receiving the invoices and proof of payment.
Judge rejects excuses for unpaid expenses
The judge looked at several disputed expenses in detail and found the husband’s explanations lacking. For the Sanlam premium, the order required the husband to pay it directly to Sanlam. Instead, he chose to reimburse his wife but then failed to pay the November 2025 premium at all.
He later claimed his wife had not submitted a properly vouched claim, even though he knew Sanlam did not issue monthly invoices for the fixed-premium policy. Judge Barthus found his explanation was contradicted by the record and had no merit.
A similar issue came up with the replacement of his wife’s car tyres. She submitted the invoice on 16 October 2025, but his attorneys only queried it on 1 December.
Even after his wife provided clarification on 9 December, the husband still refused to pay. The judge found that the Rule 43 order clearly required payment for tyre replacement, and that certification was only needed for wheel balancing and alignment.
The judge also rejected the husband’s position on medical aid. The order required him to keep his wife as a dependent on his medical aid and to pay reasonable medical expenses not covered by the scheme.
He had previously removed her from his medical aid in November 2024. Despite repeated requests, he failed to provide proof that she had been reinstated or show a medical aid card. His claim that she 'remained covered' was not backed by any evidence.
He could not impose his own conditions on the order
A central issue was the husband’s argument that he was allowed to decide whether his wife’s expenses were reasonable before paying them. Judge Barthus rejected this argument.
The Rule 43 order said he had to reimburse his wife within five days of getting the invoice or proof of payment. The judge found that this obligation began as soon as he received the invoice, not when he was satisfied with the expense.
The husband had no right to delay payment while deciding for himself whether an expense was reasonable; the judge said that accepting his view would turn a mandatory reimbursement into a discretionary system, letting him decide if and when to pay.
“That is not what the order says, nor what it means,” the judge said. The husband also argued that the Rule 43 order was ambiguous, but the judge found that he only brought this up much later.
He had not complained about any ambiguity for months, either in correspondence or when he made partial payments that showed he accepted his obligations. The judge said the order was clear, detailed, and written in plain language.
Attorney-only communication was no excuse
The husband also tried to use the fact that all communication went through attorneys as an excuse for some delays. But the judge rejected this argument, pointing out that the husband had insisted that all communication go through attorneys.
The judgment notes that on 8 September 2025, he told his wife that all communication had to go through attorneys. When she later sent municipal accounts directly to him, he told her again to send them to his attorneys.
Judge Barthus described his reliance on that arrangement as 'disingenuous'. The judge also rejected the husband’s claims that times when he was unavailable, including trips to Namibia and visits to a game reserve, explained his failure to comply.
There was no evidence to support those claims and, even if accepted, they did not explain the ongoing pattern of late payments or why reimbursements stopped completely after November 2025.
The judge also noted that the husband had been enjoying holidays while the maintenance order went unpaid. This, she said, showed a lack of good faith and his attitude towards both his wife and the court order.
Contempt was established
The court repeated that contempt means there must be an order, the person must know about it, there must be non-compliance, and the non-compliance must be wilful and in bad faith.
Once the first three requirements are met, the husband had to provide enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt about whether his non-compliance was wilful and in bad faith.
Judge Barthus found that the wife had proven the existence of the order, that her husband knew about it, and that he had not complied. The husband failed to raise any reasonable doubt.
His explanations were vague, unsupported, and contradicted by the facts. He did not provide proof of his supposed periods of unavailability, did not point out specific problems in his wife’s documentation, or explain why he stopped making payments after November 2025.
The judge found that the husband’s conduct met the test for dolus eventualis, meaning he foresaw that his actions would lead to non-compliance with the order and accepted that outcome.
The court found that his selective compliance, unjustified refusals, and late arguments showed a deliberate disregard for the order. “The husband’s version is not just improbable, it is demonstrably false in important respects,” Judge Barthus said.
Six-month sentence suspended for three years
The husband was found to be in contempt of the Rule 43 order made on 2 September 2025. He was sentenced to six months in prison, but the sentence was suspended for three years as long as he is not found in contempt of court during that time.
He was also ordered to pay his wife R23 350.76 within five days of the order. He was further ordered to pay the full legal costs of the contempt application.
This means the six-month prison sentence will not take effect immediately, but the husband could go to jail if he is found in contempt again during the three-year suspension period.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
